Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

Chimpanzees use others to get what they want, new research from the University of St Andrews has found.

A team of researchers from the University of St Andrews, the University of Leipzig and the Max Planck Institute for Pyscholinguistics in the Netherlands has discovered that chimps can manipulate other chimps as tools to satisfy their own needs.

The study – published in the Journal of Comparative Psychology – presented a group of semi-wild chimpanzees with an apparatus that would release juice from a distantly-located fountain.

Cognitive skills

Any individual chimpanzee could only either push the buttons or drink from the fountain but never push and drink simultaneously. Thus, to get the desired juice, another individual was needed.

During the testing, one adult male used other individuals more than 100 times to drink juice.

He retrieved another chimp from the spacious enclosure, pushed them towards the apparatus and repositioned them. If they didn’t push the buttons, he then pushed them towards the buttons again or started begging by blowing raspberries and reaching out.

Social tools

Dr Manon Schweinfurth of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at St Andrews said: “While there is good evidence that social animals show elaborate cognitive skills to deal with others, there are few reports of animals using others like physical tools.”

In contrast to physical tools, a social tool – such as another individual – needs to perform an action that cannot be fully controlled by the social tool user, i.e. releasing the tool in order to drink from the fountain.

Using this strategy, the social tool user increased his juice intake drastically, while social tools did not receive any juice from their action.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the University of St Andrews. 

The death knell is sounding for the government’s controversial badger culls.

The government launched its badger control policy stating that it would be science-led – but even so the estimated benefit to bovine TB incidence in cattle was small. Importantly, it was also reliant on satisfying strict licensing criteria.

A cull that delivers no benefit, or that makes the bovine TB situation worse, is not only a waste of time and money; it could also be unlawful because badgers are legally protected. The 1992 Protection of Badgers Act permits licensed culling only for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease.

Licensing changes

The Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) has said that its culls are lawful. However, this claim has been undermined by Defra’s wrongful interference with licensing criteria and by static or worsening bovine TB prevalence in the cull zones. 

Secretary of state Liz Truss’s decision to change three of the licensing criteria led to an extensive roll-out of the culls (from three to 32 areas). 

These changes were put to the public as proposals, and views were sought in a public consultation in August 2015.

The three proposals were: to extend the culling period; to reduce the minimum cull area size; and to remove the 70 percent land access requirement. None of these changes made sense in terms of disease prevention or reduction.

Furthermore, Defra’s only ‘evidence’ (in relation to the second proposal) was swiftly and adeptly dismissed by the British Veterinary Zoological Society, which said: “We […] consider that the conclusion is drawn on the basis of unsafe assumptions and cannot be relied upon.”

Strong opposition

There were almost 1400 responses to the public consultation. The vast majority of responses were opposed to badger culling. Of those who answered the questions, and expressed opposition or support, 92-94 percent were against the proposals themselves.

The argument against the proposals was weighty and convincing. By contrast the argument for the proposals was flimsy and feeble. Respondents homed in on Defra’s ‘assumptions’ and non-existent evidence, and Defra admitted later that it had made no calculations about a resultant impact on bTB incidence.

While wildlife and welfare organisations – representing millions – voiced their opposition, many farmers and farming organisations failed to respond, and the National Farmers Union missed the deadline by two weeks.

Of the farmers who did respond, more were against reducing the cull zone size than in favour; 32 percent were against extending the cull period; and 41 percent were against removing the land access requirement.

Ignored responses

Defra produced no evidence that Liz Truss’s decision was informed by the responses.

Moreover, it’s clear from the responses that Defra did not take due account of, or give genuine and conscientious consideration to, the consultation outcome – as stipulated by the Aarhus Convention and the ‘duty to consult’ requirements under common law, known as the Sedley requirements.

It also seems that Natural England, the National Farmers Union, and some farmers had been tipped the wink about Truss’s ‘decision’ before she had even made it: why else would Natural England monitors be conducting biosecurity visits in Devon – where a licence application had been refused a few months earlier – six days before Truss had cleared the Summary of Responses to the Consultationand the revised Guidance to Natural England? 

Science was cast aside and a strategy to prevent the spread of disease was abandoned while the aim of killing badgers more easily and in far greater numbers was pursued. 

One shrewd respondent said: “Despite the veneer of the licensing process, I am very concerned that the hidden agenda behind all three of these proposals is the virtually uncontrolled killing of badgers. This is a dreadfully damaging approach, not only for badgers but for farming and wildlife as a whole.”

Institutional landowners

In 2011 – before Defra had decided to go ahead with the policy – the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) was clearly confident that the National Trust would allow culling on its land.

In a letter to Caroline Spelman (the then Environment Secretary), CLA President William Worsley said: “It would be particularly useful, if, in the first instance, licences could be granted to a number of the big institutional landowners, such as the National Trust, the Church Commissioners and the Duchies.” 

However, as it turned out, the National Trust would not play ball. It declared in its response that: “We do not support a roll out of the culls.

“Moving away from the evidence base provided by the RBCT risks making the disease more prevalent, not less […] We will not allow the extension of culling to our land. This includes not allowing it on National Trust land that is leased to tenants.” The other landowners mentioned by Worsley have neither confirmed nor denied whether they are involved.

Removed obstacles

The Bovine TB Eradication Advisory Group for England, which advises Defra ministers on bTB policy, referred to the reluctance of “institutional landowners” in its response.

It was also reported in the Farmers Weeklyon 3 September 2015 that a Devon farmer “described the sign-up process as ‘challenging’ because the National Trust – one of Britain’s biggest landowners – still refuses to allow cullers on to its land.”

Perhaps it was this reluctance by the National Trust along with the cull’s general unpopularity with landowners that led to Defra launching its consultation and removing the strict criteria – because their removal was essential to achieving an extensive cull roll-out.

Pointless slaughter

Badgers are a native, legally protected species and yet they are being massacred in these culls in their tens of thousands. More than 34,000 have already been killed and by the end of this year another 42,000 could be gone.

Furthermore, this killing is being carried out according to licensing criteria that have been enfeebled by the government to such an extent that “preventing the spread of disease” as a purpose – according to the law – is no longer credible. Indeed, recent data have confirmed the futility of culling.

The government was warned, by a number of respondents, that changing the licence criteria would have a negative effect, wiping out any chance of achieving disease control benefits. Unsurprisingly, this prediction has been borne out.

Open letter

After analysing data released by the government in September 2018, senior vets and animal welfare experts challenged claims by the farming minister George Eustice that the culls were working.

In an open letter to the Observer, the vets and experts said: “The data upon which Mr Eustice bases his statement provide no evidence whatsoever for his claimed ‘reductions in TB cases in Somerset and Gloucestershire’.”

The letter also expressed reservations about Defra’s method of analysis. The vets and experts stated: “Put simply, there are approximately the same proportion of bTB affected herds now, as there were before culling started.

“Badger culling has not resulted in a decrease in bTB in cattle in cull zones, for the prevalence remains unchanged. Any statement made to the contrary is simply not true.”

Moreover, recent data suggest that the incidence and prevalence of infection among cattle herds in the Gloucestershire central cull zone, which has now been subject to six years of culling, is rising significantly.

Uphold the law

A wealth of evidence disputes Defra’s claim that its farmer-led culls are for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease. Getting rid of the licensing criteria that provided (an albeit tenuous) justification to cull, ignoring the warnings about the impact this would have, disregarding data that showed no benefit, and – at the same time – falsely claiming success, are the actions of a government department that has lost its moral compass.

‘Badger control’ is looking less like a policy and more like a conspiracy – with the wholesale slaughter of badgers its one and only goal.

Badgers are protected by law, and that law should be respected, observed and upheld – which is why, instead of escorting cull contractors, or sending in drones to observe protesters, police would be better advised to knock on the door of Number Ten.

This Author

Anna Dale campaigns against the English badger cull. This article is an abridged version, the full article can be read here. 

More than 100 people were arrested during a week of action across the UK as protesters demanded the government treat climate change as a crisis, reports Desmog.uk.

Thousands of people joined a mass protest that blocked roads and bridges in central London, with some gluing themselves to government buildings to draw attention to what they see as climate breakdown.

This was the birth of Extinction Rebellion, a movement calling for non-violent economic disruption and civil disobedience. It wants an end to the destruction of the environment, wildlife and the climate.

Net zero

Extinction Rebellion is working to establish campaign groups beyond the UK, with coordinators already working in the US, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Italy and Spain. But much of the movement’s international expansion is focused on the US.

For Jamie Henn, co-founder of the campaign group 350, watching events in London last week from the US had been “incredibly exciting” and embodied “a growing sense of anger and desire for radical solutions”.

Henn said he was confident Extinction Rebellion would inspire similar non-violent direct climate actions in the US over the coming months, but whether the movement was one that could endure the test of time was yet to be seen.

Sanders’ presidential campaign, which inspired Extinction Rebellion’s mobilisation strategy, has given rise to a new generation of young leaders including more women and people of colour – a trend reflected in the US’ congressional midterm elections.

Newly elected liberals, led by the 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are demanding the Democrats back a “Green New Deal” to rapidly transform the economy to 100 percent renewable energy in a decade – a target largely in line with Extinction Rebellion’s own demand to reach net zero by 2025.

Game changer

Henn said that the only way in which the Extinction Rebellion movement would take off in the US would be by “moving away from a climate movement that is predominantly made up of older, middle-class white people”.

Instead, Henn said Extinction Rebellion had “to build a multi-racial and multi-generational movement which will include young people of colour in its leadership and tackle issues such as equity and environmental justice”.

For Henn, the movement will also have to ensure it uses a universal language that inspires urgency but respects and reflects the experiences of those most vulnerable.

Referring to a banner that was dropped from Westminster bridge in central London last week and read “Climate Change, We’re fucked”, he added: “It is one thing to say such things from the safety of London, but it’s another if you are living on the frontline of climate impacts. Some people don’t have the privilege to give up”.

Margaret Klein Salamon, founder of the US grassroots group Climate Mobilisation, believes Extinction Rebellion is “a game changer” for the climate movement.

Middle-class white people

She is part of a team of dedicated activists working on Extinction Rebellion’s international expansion, ensuring it has a robust enough infrastructure and resources to give the movement the capacity and stamina to organise in the long-term.

Salamon said Extinction Rebellion was born as the climate movement was shifting away from advocating gradual change to demanding immediate action in line with the scale of the climate crisis.

In a campaigning first, she said, Extinction Rebellion would lay out the full implications of climate change on humanity and the planet’s ecosystems without shielding people for fear of being too alarming.

She added the group was advocating solutions that may have long been seen as impossible – such as reducing carbon pollution to net-zero in the UK by 2025 – but which the group believe could gather mainstream momentum.

Extinction Rebellion will need to move away “from a climate movement that is predominantly made up of older, middle-class white people”, said Jamie Henn.

A prototype

Above all, Salamon said the use of peaceful civil disobedience as a means to engage people in  “power struggles” against governments and demand meaningful change is what made Extinction Rebellion unique.

“There is so much momentum around Extinction Rebellion and what is needed is to be able to escalate the disruption,” she said, adding: “This is still a very young movement but there is tremendous enthusiasm for it.”

Extinction Rebellion’s first public action was to occupy the Greenpeace headquarters in London – a move which took the climate movement in the UK by surprise and aimed to warn environmental NGOs against becoming complacent about governments’ inaction on climate change.

Citing inspiration from grassroots movements such as Gandhi’s independence marches, the Suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement and Occupy, Extinction Rebellion wants to rally support worldwide around a common sense of urgency to tackle climate breakdown.

Robin Boardman, a coordinator with Extinction Rebellion in the UK, said the week of action that took place across the country was “a prototype for what a global resistance could look like”.

Religious groups

Pointing out that the UK is responsible for only 1% of current global emissions, Boardman added: “What happened in London is a drop in a pond compared to what could happen worldwide in months to come.

“Like in the Arab spring, Tunisia started the uprising but it was not until it spread to Egypt that the whole movement gripped the Middle East,” Boardman said.

Inspired by US Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, Extinction Rebellion wants to export its non-violent rebellion model and ambition of widespread system change, while allowing for autonomous campaign groups to organise independently across the world.

“It is up to local groups as to whether people should be taking up action and what direction they move in. It’s about doing something different and shifting what is acceptable in the context of the climate crisis. When society is ready to lose its sense of fear in the face of state authority, then everything crumbles and change can happen,” Boardman said.

To its broad church, Extinction Rebellion has attracted much support from religious groups, including Christian Climate Action, which had several of its members arrested in the UK last week.

Ramp up pressure

Caroline Harmon, from the Christian Climate Action, said that her group has received messages of support from Christian communities across the world, who have been inspired by last week’s actions.

The first Extinction Rebellion action on the African continent was held earlier this month in front of a church in Accra, Ghana, where dozens of climate activists carrying Extinction Rebellion placards told churchgoers about the global climate resistance being born in the UK.

Mawuse Yao Agorkor, a grassroot social activist from Ghana and the general secretary of the West African Vazoba network, said the launch of Extinction Rebellion in London was “an exciting moment” and that he was hoping larger protests would “hit the streets of Ghana soon”.

The Vazoba network has long campaigned against deforestation, the use of toxic chemical and mining in the region and now hopes to use its organising tools and contacts across West Africa to spread Extinction Rebellion’s tactics.

Agorkor said he was not afraid of using civil disobedience as a means to ramp up pressure on his government. “I have been working on the ground for six years, and getting arrested for protesting in the interest of our planet is something that my group is not afraid of,” he said.

Agorkor is well aware that if the movement is to spread through Africa, it will have to adapt in places where police brutality is common and protesters could be met with open fire. But for now, Agorkor believes the organising capacity of both Vazoba and Extinction Rebellion constitute “a good starting point”.

This Article

This article was originally published on DeSmog UK.